Welcome

Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

I know I don't get out much, very small town etc, but from what I read on here, is it true that antiretrovirals aren't free in the U.S.A.?Do you guys have to pay for your meds.?I read a couple of posts about people unable to keep paying.How can the Govt. justify letting people not have drugs that are supposed to keep them alive.?

America is made up of some really smart and caring people. However, we also have many dumb and uncaring people who seem to get their way most of the time. I know other countries have some dumb people, too. If it weren't for Tony Blair in the UK, Bush would have had a harder time making his case for war.

Anyway, the Clintons tried to get healthcare back in '93, but the conservatives destroyed that. I just wrote about this recently. Conservatives seem to not care about healthcare, the environment, or gays until it affects them. They think they have good healthcare and people who don't are just lazy. They often change their mind on that when they get really sick and find their healthcare isn't all that great. They don't care about the environment until an oil spill affects their ocean-front vacation home. They don't care about gays until one of their kids tells them they are gay--even then there are many who disown them.

I agree with Bill Maher. America is made up of more stupid people than smart. Just look at the creationism/evolution debate. Most Americans believe in the Bible's version--Adam and Eve and all that. That tells you just about all you need to know. I have a family member who I always fight with due to her religious beliefs. She says she does charity work by helping with this organization to get young girls to keep their unborn babies. Okay, nothing wrong with that. However, once those girls have those babies, she is totally against welfare programs to help the mother and child. She is against healthcare for the mother and child. Due to her being against gay marriage, I'm sure she's against gays adopting those kids. I've tried to understand what is going on in their brains, but just can't.

America is made up of some really smart and caring people. However, we also have many dumb and uncaring people who seem to get their way most of the time. I know other countries have some dumb people, too. If it weren't for Tony Blair in the UK, Bush would have had a harder time making his case for war.

Anyway, the Clintons tried to get healthcare back in '93, but the conservatives destroyed that. I just wrote about this recently. Conservatives seem to not care about healthcare, the environment, or gays until it affects them. They think they have good healthcare and people who don't are just lazy. They often change their mind on that when they get really sick and find their healthcare isn't all that great. They don't care about the environment until an oil spill affects their ocean-front vacation home. They don't care about gays until one of their kids tells them they are gay--even then there are many who disown them.

I agree with Bill Maher. America is made up of more stupid people than smart. Just look at the creationism/evolution debate. Most Americans believe in the Bible's version--Adam and Eve and all that. That tells you just about all you need to know. I have a family member who I always fight with due to her religious beliefs. She says she does charity work by helping with this organization to get young girls to keep their unborn babies. Okay, nothing wrong with that. However, once those girls have those babies, she is totally against welfare programs to help the mother and child. She is against healthcare for the mother and child. Due to her being against gay marriage, I'm sure she's against gays adopting those kids. I've tried to understand what is going on in their brains, but just can't.

I don't think Pale was commenting on American people. Very few Australians would be aware of just how complex and inequitious the provision of health care in the USA can be and I suspect that is what he finds so mind boggling.

Medications in Australia are covered by a system called the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). The prices which pharmaceutical companies can charge for prescription medications are set by the Australian Government.

Further the actual cost to Australian citizens and permanent residents are then subsidised. Most prescriptions cost no more than around $30 each. If a person is in receipt of welfare then a script will cost $5.90 a pop. The Government pays the balance of the cost.

After 52 prescriptions in a year, all remaining prescriptions for that year are free.

For HIV positive Aussies, a visit to AIDSmeds can be quite enlightening.

I'm one of the lucky Americans. I work for a hospital and have insurance. I pay about $2100 a year in healthcare expenses. Every time I have labs drawn it is about $250, which is why I am considering having them done only once a year.

Living where I do, I don't even have to pay for prescriptions, and reading what some of you have to go through to get meds brings up feelings of anger and guilt. Just wish there was something I could do to help.

America is made up of more stupid people than smart. Just look at the creationism/evolution debate. Most Americans believe in the Bible's version--Adam and Eve and all that. That tells you just about all you need to know.

WHile Ill refrain from bashing most of the american populace and all of the bible thumpers. I will bash away at American politicians. Politicians are greedy, egotistical and slimy. It's pervasive and no one political party is immune from this, it occurs from the president on down.

Politics is the sole reason people (who want them) are going without meds in the US. The sole reason Retroman http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=32528.0 and many others are faced with the prosepct of "no meds" is pure politics, nothing else.

In the view of the American Political machine it is perfectly OK and moral to bail out a multitude of private companys to the tune of billions, but yet still have people waiting and dying while on ADAP waiting lists. It is unconsionable that that is happening in America in 2010!!!

WAKE up Obama and Congress! How about some money for ADAP! NOW not in 90 days or whatever when your healthcare debacle starts churning (ok, Obama it's a good start but these people need drugs yesterday).You too Bush, you and your congress did nothing either!! Fuckin idiots, all of them!

Well, mummy won't be whining on about her treatment in OZ anymore.I just got three crowns on my teeth, and a scan on my kidneys, my meds, my new specs, and an ultrasound.I whined because I had to travel 580 kms. to sydney, and they would only refund half the fare.!!The rest was free.Because I live in a rural area, I can get the flying doctor to take me to Sydney, but I don't.Maybe we could do something about gay marriage.A partner here gets the same treatment, all free.Anyone want to marry a fat, poisonous 50 yo.?I know this stuff is happening in a lot of countries, this lack of care, it just frustrates me.In India, you see people literally dying for lack of medicine, and they have the social stigma as well.No family will admit they have a member with HIV. They often lock them in a cupboard, literally, until they die.Or just poison them.The social stigma is too horrible.

I hope it isn't totally necessary for me to point out that NOTHING IS FREE. no matter where you live..... the issue revolves around who pays? how much and when.... If you are one of the persons who pays nothing then someone else is paying for you, if you pay some portion then someone else is paying the other portion. some places have chosen to put a Government sponsored " universal" healthcare system in place and find the money through various ways to fund that.... in most cases this is a frequent source of political debate and a challenge to keep funded.

In few ( ie. Greece) the Govmnt was so generous with all the social programs including health care / retirement and other benefits that the country is bankrupt with little hope for recovery in the foreseeable future...

Here in the USA I have personally seen this debate waft and wane for more than 50 yrs...virtually all political parties support some form of Health care, it always comes down to who pays ,when and how much?? so far only certain distinct groups have won the day..... there are sad stories every day of someone having no resources to pay for health care....a very recent case made TV news for 3 days about a man with cancer who " made too much money" to be eligible for public aid..... finally a Hospital/Dr took him on for free.

I don't think "Obama care" will solve the total problem..... there are /will still be restrictions on availability .

As far as how smart/ stupid Americans are I haven't seen any overwhelming evidence that they are particularly different from other places...In Fact the majority of "Americans" came from other places because they felt it was better here than there. I don't see a rush by many to go back..

In few ( ie. Greece) the Govmnt was so generous with all the social programs including health care / retirement and other benefits that the country is bankrupt with little hope for recovery in the foreseeable future...

Greece wasn't bankrupted by social programs, rather rich people who don't pay taxes to support social programs. Blame the rich, not sick people and the working class. Please!

I hope it isn't totally necessary for me to point out that NOTHING IS FREE. no matter where you live..... the issue revolves around who pays? how much and when.... If you are one of the persons who pays nothing then someone else is paying for you, to

I don't think "Obama care" will solve the total problem..... there are /will still be restrictions on availability .

Nick

I'm with ya Nick. I get it. I'm still not clear on how Obamacare will help clear the ADAP waiting list rolls, and frankly I dont want to get in to that discussion right now.

What pisses me off is that people are having to wait RIGHT NOW for access to meds, and have been for some time(waiting lists have been around since 2001 or longer?). Perhaps I'm naive in my thinking but it seems like with a simple stroke of the pen Congress or Obama could approve Emergency Appropriations to get ADAP funded. Rough figures for the cost of this assuming 1000 people on waiting lists at a cost of $2500/mo for meds would equal about 30 million per year. But no, we cant do that, but yet we can fund bullshit pork projects for museums, bridges to nowhere and the like, oh and dont forget the Air Force One Flyover of New York that cost us $329k. Wouldn't it be nice if we would have sent that $329k to the states to help clear the ADAP waiting lists?

Jon Stewart just asked, Are the American people stupid? He talks about how we want Medicare, but we don't want to pay for it. Below is the clip. It includes the opening, so you can skip to around minute 5. However, the opening is very good where he shows clips of different politicians saying what the American people want. As you can imagine, what the 2 parties say we want is very different.

I hope it isn't totally necessary for me to point out that NOTHING IS FREE. no matter where you live..... the issue revolves around who pays? how much and when.... ...

This is simply false.

It it certainly correct to say that health care always has a cost -- but to say NOTHING IS FREE is wrong and is often used to imply that no improvements can be made.

And actually, there are many things that are friee -- if we could open our eyes and see them. -- increases in quality from coordinated care if we stopped allowing every doctor to be a separate profit center-- better care and lower administrative cost if we used common formats for exchanging medical data-- and many many more.

The proof that the US system is missing a lot of free things is pretty simple to demonstrate -- we spend over 50% more of our per capita GDP and get worse health care results on average than any other developed economy.

It it certainly correct to say that health care always has a cost -- but to say NOTHING IS FREE is wrong and is often used to imply that no improvements can be made.

And actually, there are many things that are friee -- if we could open our eyes and see them. -- increases in quality from coordinated care if we stopped allowing every doctor to be a separate profit center-- better care and lower administrative cost if we used common formats for exchanging medical data-- and many many more.

The proof that the US system is missing a lot of free things is pretty simple to demonstrate -- we spend over 50% more of our per capita GDP and get worse health care results on average than any other developed economy.

QED

You raise good points.

But I think what NiceGuy was referring to was just getting in the door and getting free "face to face" medical care or free drugs, ie. ADAP, Ryan White, County/State health programs, etc.. which are all funded by taxpayers. There's a base cost of the actual "face to face" with a doc, which precedes any potential "free better quality care" once your in there. I dont see how "-- increases in quality from coordinated care if we stopped allowing every doctor to be a separate profit center" is going to get the taxpayers off the hook for the base cost of the visit. Or how that would get the taxpayers off the hook for free meds. I acknowldge that streamlined better coordinated care is a good thing and could save a lot of money but I dont think it would be enough to cover these taxpayer funded services, or at least not all of it

But I think what NiceGuy was referring to was just getting in the door and getting free "face to face" medical care or free drugs, ie. ADAP, Ryan White, County/State health programs, etc.. which are all funded by taxpayers. There's a base cost of the actual "face to face" with a doc, which precedes any potential "free better quality care" once your in there. I dont see how "-- increases in quality from coordinated care if we stopped allowing every doctor to be a separate profit center" is going to get the taxpayers off the hook for the base cost of the visit. Or how that would get the taxpayers off the hook for free meds. I acknowldge that streamlined better coordinated care is a good thing and could save a lot of money but I dont think it would be enough to cover these taxpayer funded services, or at least not all of it

-Will

Perhaps you missed the second line where I said: "It it certainly correct to say that health care always has a cost"

My point was that Nick and others have repeatedly said "Nothing is free" as a way of shutting down discussions of the vast opportunity for improvement in the US healthcare system.

This argument is unsupported by the publicly available data on the US system.

We could get half of all medical care essentially for free if we reformed the system so that we spent the average per capita percent of GDP for western countries -- and we might well get better health care as a result. (If we only spent as much as the worst performing western countries, instead of the average, we would get a third of it for free.) Yes, as a society, we'd have to pay for the other half of medical care at current prices. But if we were organized right HALF of it should be free.

Perhaps you missed the second line where I said: "It it certainly correct to say that health care always has a cost"

My point was that Nick and others have repeatedly said "Nothing is free" as a way of shutting down discussions of the vast opportunity for improvement in the US healthcare system.

This argument is unsupported by the publicly available data on the US system.

We could get half of all medical care essentially for free if we reformed the system so that we spent the average per capita percent of GDP for western countries -- and we might well get better health care as a result. (If we only spent as much as the worst performing western countries, instead of the average, we would get a third of it for free.) Yes, as a society, we'd have to pay for the other half of medical care at current prices. But if we were organized right HALF of it should be free.

Perhaps you missed the second line where I said: "It it certainly correct to say that health care always has a cost"

Perhaps you missed the part where you called a "simply false" to Nicks statement of "I hope it isn't totally necessary for me to point out that NOTHING IS FREE. no matter where you live..... the issue revolves around who pays? how much and when.... "

That's where my response was directed.

I think it's clear we are agreeing in a round about way with each other.

thanks for the good level of discussion... I am not stuck on any particular solution.... I have seen many efforts to take advantage of the possible efficiencies in the way the system currently operates... the current Military health system does exactly that , there are a number of major national Health organizations ( Hospitals/ clinics ) that do share and cooperate in patient care....even the Medicare system tries to do that... Medicare sponsors a program that is still in operation to encourage ( actually require) putting medical records in a standardized format to share among providers..

However the issue of how the basic system that delivers Health care operates is not a simple matter of a presidential decree or congressional report/law...... the issue is Government Control of what is essentially a free enterprise system, If you support the overall concept of government controll of whatever , including Health care, then there is a solution and many examples to follow that path..... if you lean toward the "free enterprise" model the solution is neither free or easy.... currently the whole country leans toward the Free Enterprise system... and I haven't seen anyone including the current administration that is willing to admit that they want to go to a more government full control, lots of rhetoric but that doesn't equate to actual doing...

Happy to hear there are some folks out there who at least consider this a worthy major discussion , are you also voters with a voice looking for a Candidate to execute your mandate??

Perhaps you missed the second line where I said: "It it certainly correct to say that health care always has a cost"

My point was that Nick and others have repeatedly said "Nothing is free" as a way of shutting down discussions of the vast opportunity for improvement in the US healthcare system.

This argument is unsupported by the publicly available data on the US system.

We could get half of all medical care essentially for free if we reformed the system so that we spent the average per capita percent of GDP for western countries -- and we might well get better health care as a result. (If we only spent as much as the worst performing western countries, instead of the average, we would get a third of it for free.) Yes, as a society, we'd have to pay for the other half of medical care at current prices. But if we were organized right HALF of it should be free.

Half is not nothing.

I am enjoying this discussion, but I think you are doing a little of what you are accusing the "other side" of doing -- trying to shut down discussion by saying we can save and that this is the answer. Now, don't get upset, I actually agree with most of what you say, but I'm going to present it differently......

cutting out waste and/or increasing efficiency, doesn't make anything "free", it simply decreases cost -- a very good thing. however, what isn't being discussed is what will this improved efficiency cost?

Example -- "lower cost of administrative activities". This is a great goal, but what this means is that there will be less people performing administrative activities -- meaning many hundreds, or probably, thousands of people out of work. I'm not talking about the highly paid insurance execs here, I am talking about regular old folk, making "normal" salaries. Unemployment costs money, retraining costs money. Folks who did nothing "wrong" will be losing their jobs due to reform.

That is but one example -- every efficiency found ultimately costs jobs. I'm not talking about getting rid of fraud, that should cost far fewer, if any, jobs.

Again -- not saying we shouldn't do this -- I actually think we should -- but it is NEVER mentioned by people who are for reforming our current health care system. I understand why, you don't want to bring up the "problems" that reform will cause -- even if they are temporary, because the reform is a hard enough sell. However, full transparency demands honest and complete discussion.

So, again, I'll say -- I'm for reform, so no need to jump all over me here -- I'm just trying to point out an unpleasant, if temporary, side effect of this reform.

Finally -- i don't think Nick was trying to shut down the discussion at all by pointing out that nothing is free. he was just insuring that this fact isn't forgotten, because he is right -- nothing is free.

I am enjoying this discussion, but I think you are doing a little of what you are accusing the "other side" of doing -- trying to shut down discussion by saying we can save and that this is the answer. Now, don't get upset, I actually agree with most of what you say, but I'm going to present it differently......

cutting out waste and/or increasing efficiency, doesn't make anything "free", it simply decreases cost -- a very good thing. however, what isn't being discussed is what will this improved efficiency cost?

Example -- "lower cost of administrative activities". This is a great goal, but what this means is that there will be less people performing administrative activities -- meaning many hundreds, or probably, thousands of people out of work. I'm not talking about the highly paid insurance execs here, I am talking about regular old folk, making "normal" salaries. Unemployment costs money, retraining costs money. Folks who did nothing "wrong" will be losing their jobs due to reform.

That is but one example -- every efficiency found ultimately costs jobs. I'm not talking about getting rid of fraud, that should cost far fewer, if any, jobs.

Again -- not saying we shouldn't do this -- I actually think we should -- but it is NEVER mentioned by people who are for reforming our current health care system. I understand why, you don't want to bring up the "problems" that reform will cause -- even if they are temporary, because the reform is a hard enough sell. However, full transparency demands honest and complete discussion.

So, again, I'll say -- I'm for reform, so no need to jump all over me here -- I'm just trying to point out an unpleasant, if temporary, side effect of this reform.

Finally -- i don't think Nick was trying to shut down the discussion at all by pointing out that nothing is free. he was just insuring that this fact isn't forgotten, because he is right -- nothing is free.

Mike

I think Assurb was pointing out that the "nothing is free" response is actually a permutation of the flawed argument "better is the enemy of good" aka the Perfect Solution Fallacy.

Finally -- i don't think Nick was trying to shut down the discussion at all by pointing out that nothing is free. he was just insuring that this fact isn't forgotten, because he is right -- nothing is free.

No, in a properly designed system, some things that have a cost today are free. Consider the cost of dealing with different paperwork requests from different insurers. Under single payer the cost of dealing with multiple parties goes away. It is free.

To say "nothing is free" ignores the fact that, by eliminating redundancies and improving efficiencies, we could pay half in total.

Example -- "lower cost of administrative activities". This is a great goal, but what this means is that there will be less people performing administrative activities -- meaning many hundreds, or probably, thousands of people out of work. I'm not talking about the highly paid insurance execs here, I am talking about regular old folk, making "normal" salaries. Unemployment costs money, retraining costs money. Folks who did nothing "wrong" will be losing their jobs due to reform....That is but one example -- every efficiency found ultimately costs jobs. I'm not talking about getting rid of fraud, that should cost far fewer, if any, jobs

There will always be those with an interest in maintaining the status quo. But the path to full employment does not lead through purposeless paperwork.

This is one of those areas where looking at things on the micro level can lead one astray. If one followed this idea through to its ultimate conclusion we would be valuing jobs over productivity -- or in other words saying that it is better that all should live as slaves. Would you rather live in a society like North Korea where people are assigned to busy work and productivity is so low that the society cannot feed itself? Would the US be a better place to live if we were almost all employed as farmers using hand tools to generate a subsistence lifestyle? Of course not.

One of the advantages of market based systems is that they increase productivity, allowing us a society to lead better lives. Sometimes that means that people lose jobs manufacturing buggy whips, picking cotton by hand or processing mindless health insurance paperwork. But if society is more productive we have the means to ease those individuals' transition to more useful work in emerging technologies -- manufacturing cotton gins or windmills; laying the infrastructure for transportation or computers. And generally we do ease that path -- although some of us would argue we should do more (vide Reich, Robert.).

Efficiencies do not cost jobs in the long run -- they enable more people and productivity. That produces a society with more jobs and more interesting work.

Again -- not saying we shouldn't do this -- I actually think we should -- but it is NEVER mentioned by people who are for reforming our current health care system. I understand why, you don't want to bring up the "problems" that reform will cause -- even if they are temporary, because the reform is a hard enough sell. However, full transparency demands honest and complete discussion....So, again, I'll say -- I'm for reform, so no need to jump all over me here -- I'm just trying to point out an unpleasant, if temporary, side effect of this reform.

Well, I'm hoping you (and Nick -- who, from what I can see is one of the sweetest of the forum ) don't feel jumped all over. By putting things into writing sometimes they come across as colder on the screen than they are intended. And this isn't intended to be biting in any way.

I do think you are asking for a bit much though, when you suggest that advocates of improving health care should make the case that it will require changes in people's jobs. First .. it's kinda obvious and not unique to healthcare. Any major change in any industry has short term effects on jobs. Second, it is not as if the affected industries have no chance to make their views known. Third, shouldn't advocates for change be focused first on where we should be headed? I've never been involved in any successful change effort that started by defining the transition before it defined the end state.

(Mike, hope it was not too annoying to rearrange your paragraphs for purposes of responding -- just trying to get them into groups. )

I like the little fun asides... keeps the level of discussion out of the doldrums.... the mention of "single payer" is a very good possible solution... it was / still is currently being used by one of the largest USA health systems ( Medicare) expanding that system of payment ran into a brick wall with the current discussion of "Obamacare" for various reasons the powers that created most of that "new system" prefer additional bureaucracies to expansion of the current one ( with its well known flaws and difficulties) that is , in fact, a single payer system that is run under various competitively bid contracts with major administration type companies..

we have yet to see what new and exciting "flaws "will arise under the newly created system..probably will see all the attending "Boards/ groups/review panels ....ad nauseum" .. before we see the actual system running..

If a measure of any kind of efficiency savings were to be realized by any combination of systems , I feel certain ( very good historical data) they would be quickly overcommitted by some aggressive congressional action....to some other "money saving" activity... ( Is that too cynical ??)

Since I have a very personal interest in seeing that the Health care system remains viable I am moderately active in following what the persons most likely to affect those systems are doing/thinking of doing to any one of them.... I have regular contact with my congressional delegation and support the efforts of the ones who seem to be sincere.

I find myself being more and more interested in the outcomes of the European current issues about the possible actions taken to fix the financial crises looming there.... i try to watch the BBC news as often as i can get it......I believe the current USA fiscal policies of more and more debt without increased income will quickly lead to the same situation that Great Britain, France, Portugal, Spain and of course Greece find themselves in now..

By way of comparison, I pay $17.70 a month for all three of my HIV meds. Not $17.70 each, $17.70 the trifecta.

HIV specialist and GP visits are free as are all the attendant blood tests.

MtD

I know that I am late to the discussion, but another comparison from an Aussie in different circumstances to MtD.

Last month, and every month I paid $99.90 for all three of my HIV meds - that's $33.30 per script ($1,200 per year). I pay this for any script (HIV or not) that I get filled. I pay about $30 for each GP visit - he is also my HIV doctor. Minimum of 4 visits per year to get bloodwork done and get new scripts.I pay a 1.5% medicare levy on my pre-tax salary - $1,400 per year.I'm also compelled to have private medical insurance or pay an additional medicare levy of 1% - annual cost about $600 for basic coverage that I rarely if ever use, and simply seems to be a subsidy to the private health industry to keep them going (I pay it as it works out less per year than the additional 1% medicare 'penalty' I would have to pay if I didn't have it).

I contribute a minimum of about $3,500 annually toward our medical system and my medical care. I have no issue with that as the amount I contribute bears some relationship to my ability to pay. But, I just wanted to point out that it is not free, and not everyone pays the same as Matty.

Thnx Fearless for that enlightening input.... I was not aware of the actual mechanism used by the government to pay for the Medical system.. so if I understand you correctly the "tax" is placed on the working population based on some sort of income formula..and mandatory insurance provision.... Is that sufficient to "pay" for the system or are there additional "general tax/revenue" funds added to fully fund the health program???

Thnx Fearless for that enlightening input.... I was not aware of the actual mechanism used by the government to pay for the Medical system.. so if I understand you correctly the "tax" is placed on the working population based on some sort of income formula..and mandatory insurance provision.... Is that sufficient to "pay" for the system or are there additional "general tax/revenue" funds added to fully fund the health program???

Nick

Nick, That's not sufficient to pay and large amounts of funding come from general revenue. The States cough up some of the money and the Commonwealth some, and they blame each other for the underfunding of the system.

And, it is all about to change again tonight when the Commonwealth Govt hands down its budget.

Palerider, you should count yourself lucky every day that you are not an American. I am one, and it is certainly a terrible cross to bear.

So renounce your citizenship already and join another country. I'm sick to death of your constant bashing of America. I put my life on the line the defend the US and it's citizens and your constant negativity (NEVER a positive word) disgusts me. Is the US perfect, hell no -- lot's of things that can be fixed and improved, but it is simply not as bad as you paint it or folks wouldn't be coming to this country in droves. You simply expect everything to be handed to you from others -- your sense of entitlement defies explanation. I think it's far past time for you end your ties to the country you find such a "cross to bear".

I think lots of people have served this country (whether in the military or in civilian population, advancing our civil rights) to ensure our freedoms are protected, and the right to free speech probably serves as the bedrock of all our freedoms. So negative or not, he shouldn't be lectured to give up his citizenship or is accused of being less-American for exercising his rights.

Anyhow....there is big perception around the world that all Americans pay for their medical costs out of pocket. There is little appreciation for the complex nature of health care coverage in the country. But great strides have been made in the past year.

It's difficult to say how much I pay here as it just comes out of general tax revenues. There is a national insurance tax, which I guess covers a lot of it but really just goes in the big pot that pays for all government services. I would guess I pay about 20-30% more in taxes in the UK compared to the US...that's not absolute numbers folks, just an increase in the payments. So it does cost me more to live here. But cost to me at the point of service is minimal. I pay nothing for HIV meds. I pay £104 a year for all my other meds, as I get a prepaid prescription card from the NHS.

My healthcare costs in the US were pretty low as I had a great plan. I think I paid $45 a month and about $5-10 for a 3 month supply of meds. Doctor visits and labs were free. But I'm guessing my employer paid a lot for the plan. I'd rather pay more in tax (and less to my employer) if it ensures everyone has coverage (including me if I were to lose my job).

Yeah, I was a bit skeptical. If you have access to good healthcare I can understand the reluctance to change. But at some point the cost structure isn't sustainable and it will begin to effect more and more.

BTW- I also have access to private healthcare via my employer (that I've never used cause the NHS is perfectly fine). So having a single payer system doesn't mean you can't top it up with private care.

Ford , I am not sure it is the paying of extra taxes that drives the issue , from the discussions and meetings I have attended there seems to be much more concern about the "government" adopting a HMO or PPO type system that specifies which Dr's / services/ and facilities you can use to get the care you need... Medicare doesn't have those conditions ( Many seniors rallied with Don't touch my Medicare ), the Military system and the VA have very closed systems even more restrictive that the HMO/ PPO type ... many of the questions raised in the discussions centered around "" I have been with my Dr for .....yrs..... I want to keep him/her..... , and can I go to ..XXXX .hospital when I need care??? and the biggy was when I need expensive treatment will I get it without a bureaucratic debate that never ends?

Most people put the "taxes" issue pretty low on the importance list, and the Govmnt control at the top.

Ford , I am not sure it is the paying of extra taxes that drives the issue , from the discussions and meetings I have attended there seems to be much more concern about the "government" adopting a HMO or PPO type system that specifies which Dr's / services/ and facilities you can use to get the care you need... Medicare doesn't have those conditions ( Many seniors rallied with Don't touch my Medicare ), the Military system and the VA have very closed systems even more restrictive that the HMO/ PPO type ... many of the questions raised in the discussions centered around "" I have been with my Dr for .....yrs..... I want to keep him/her..... , and can I go to ..XXXX .hospital when I need care??? and the biggy was when I need expensive treatment will I get it without a bureaucratic debate that never ends?

Most people put the "taxes" issue pretty low on the importance list, and the Govmnt control at the top.

maybe just the groups I am exposed to but seemed to be a theme......

Nick

That's not quite true Nic ol' boy. You can only see a doctor that accepts Medicare and not all of them do. Yes, I'm sure "the groups" you were exposed to share your views, but that doesn't make it right.

Palerider, you should count yourself lucky every day that you are not an American. I am one, and it is certainly a terrible cross to bear.

This American (me), although certainly very fortunate, has wonderful coverage. I pay $30 a month for Atripla (it would be $30 per ARV prescription otherwise) and $10 for each of my 4 other prescriptions. I also pay $20 for visits to my ID Dr. and all lab tests. I have a flex spending account that I contribute to that covers these. When I was hospitalized for 8 days about 3.5 years ago, I did have about a $3000 bill. I paid that off monthly over a couple of years. While hospitalized, I had wonderful treatment, Dr's, etc. If I were hospitalized for PCP today for 8 days, I'd pay even less; my insurance coverage is different now (PPO now vs standard insurance).

The reason I give these details is not to brag or gloat. It's in response to the constant "America Sux" posts that seem to imply that all of us here are dying from lack of medical coverage. I realize that I'm very fortunate and that any of this could/would be different with a change in my employment status. As for not being insured and dealing with HIV, hubby is on ADAP. He pays less than I do for meds, office visits, and labs. In the near future, he'll also be having a minor surgical procedure - all covered. While my insurance situation may not be the same as most in this country, many of us do have excellent coverage.

It's in response to the constant "America Sux" posts that seem to imply that all of us here are dying from lack of medical coverage. I realize that I'm very fortunate and that any of this could/would be different with a change in my employment status. As for not being insured and dealing with HIV, hubby is on ADAP.

it's really not about "all of us" though. All of us here are fortunate enough to afford internet access, much less the meds. The posts I write that sound derogatory about the American system are hopefully written in voice of those who don't have computers, don't have internet access, and don't have the meds that they need. (To be honest since all my partners have died and I only receive disability payments, if I wasn't living at my Mom's house and using her internet connection these days, I would no longer have a voice in these forums either. I'm not really bragging about my poverty, just using it to point out that a lot of HIV+ people in America are too poor to have a voice in an arena like this.)

I consider myself "lucky" because I was classified disabled back in 1999, I have been receiving medical assistance thru Medicare and Medicaid. (though the Medicare premium is paid through ADAP. that $96 covered by ADAP then moves all the monies ADAP would have spent on my meds over onto the Medicare/Medicaid programs freeing up ADAP money to fully fund someone else's meds). So far I've had access to decent health care for all these years which has brought me back from near death in 99 after the PCP to being the healthiest I've been in 15 or 20 yrs.

I don't think of my posts as "sucky" posts per se; however I do think they point out the precariousness of many of people in the US. If you and your hubby lived just a few miles south down here in SC, where the government recently wanted to totally cancel funding any ADAP money, he very likely could have ended up with no meds at all, much less that upcoming surgery. There's already 92 people on the SC waiting list who are not as lucky as your hubby or I. They get no meds and no surgeries and very possibly, just like a few years ago in this state in 2006, some of them might die before receiving medical help. At the whim of several politicans, your hubby could be no better off than those 92 South Carolinians or those in Uganda. (http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=32597).